United States of America v. Rico P. Gillespie

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
RICO P. GILLESPIE,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 21-30211
D.C. No.
3:17-cr-00062-SLG-1
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Alaska
Sharon L. Gleason, Chief District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted June 8, 2022
Anchorage, Alaska
Before: HURWITZ, BRESS, and H. THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Rico Gillespie appeals the district court’s denial of his motion for
compassionate release from prison under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Reviewing for abuse of discretion, United
States v. Keller, 2 F.4th 1278, 1281 (9th Cir. 2021) (per curiam), we affirm.
1. The district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that Gillespie
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
FILED
JUN 21 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2
had not demonstrated “extraordinary and compelling reasons” for his release based
on changes to his conditions of confinement resulting from his prison’s efforts to
control the spread of COVID-19. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i); Keller, 2 F.4th
at 1284. Although Gillespie argues that the district court relied too heavily on the
widespread nature of changes in prison practices attributable to COVID-19,
Gillespie has not demonstrated that the court abused its discretion in concluding that
the conditions he experienced—such as lockdowns, disruptions in medical care, and
lack of prison programming and services—do not constitute “extraordinary and
compelling reasons” justifying his early release. Nor does Gillespie claim any
particular medical vulnerability to COVID-19. Because Gillespie did not
demonstrate extraordinary and compelling reasons for release, the district court was
not required to conduct a separate analysis of the sentencing factors in 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a). Keller, 2 F.4th at 1284.
2. The district court did not abuse its discretion in not more specifically
analyzing Gillespie’s alleged rehabilitation in prison. The district court specifically
acknowledged Gillespie’s assertion that his “attempt to get his life on the right track
constitutes an extraordinary and compelling reason to reduce [his] sentence.”
Gillespie has not identified authority requiring more detailed evaluation under the
circumstances of this case. Nor has Gillespie provided a basis to conclude that the
district court failed to consider Gillespie’s arguments in denying relief.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --